The State of Web Vitals

TTFB distribution

How TTFB is distributed across real-user data, plus pass-rate breakdown.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites Q2 2026 edition · All devices field outcomes
1

At a glance the headline numbers for TTFB distribution

How TTFB is distributed across real-user data, plus pass-rate breakdown.

58.6%
of sites good on TTFB
665ms
Typical site
2.0s
Worst 10% of sites

58.6% of sites good on TTFB. The typical site's TTFB is 665ms. The worst 10% are above 2.0s.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

The TTFB distribution site count at each TTFB, from good to poor

0 8,206 16,412 24,617 32,823
0–150ms933 sites0.6% of all sites
150–300ms16,091 sites9.6% of all sites
300–450ms32,823 sites19.5% of all sites
450–600ms25,581 sites15.2% of all sites
600–750ms18,307 sites10.9% of all sites
750–900ms13,648 sites8.1% of all sites
900–1050ms10,696 sites6.4% of all sites
1050–1200ms8,619 sites5.1% of all sites
1200–1350ms6,863 sites4.1% of all sites
1350–1500ms5,784 sites3.4% of all sites
1500–1650ms4,679 sites2.8% of all sites
1650–1800ms3,831 sites2.3% of all sites
1800–1950ms3,335 sites2% of all sites
1950–2100ms2,808 sites1.7% of all sites
2100–2250ms2,225 sites1.3% of all sites
2250–2400ms1,972 sites1.2% of all sites
2400ms and up10,230 sites6.1% of all sites
p50 = 665ms
p75 = 1.2s
p90 = 2s
p99 = 4.2s
0–150 150–300 300–450 450–600 600–750 750–900 900–1050 1050–1200 1200–1350 1350–1500 1500–1650 1650–1800 1800–1950 1950–2100 2100–2250 2250–2400 2400+
Good (≤800ms) Needs improvement Poor (>1.8s) Percentile markers Total: 168,425 sites

The tallest bar is between 300ms and 450ms. 19% of sites are in that one range, 350ms under Google's 800ms limit. Half of all sites are at 665ms or less. The tail is long. The worst 10% are above 2.0s and the worst 1% above 4.2s. That is 6.3 times the typical site.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

The TTFB pass rate the share of sites that are good, needs improvement and poor

TTFB
58.6%
29.2%
12.2%
Good Needs Improvement Poor

58.6% of sites are good on TTFB. 29.2% are in the needs improvement band, between 800ms and 1.8s. 12.2% are poor, above 1.8s. A miss is usually needs improvement, not poor.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
4

Why this matters for the Core Web Vitals, and where to start fixing it

Time to First Byte is how long the browser waits for the server to start replying. It is a diagnostic metric, not a Core Web Vital, but it is the foundation the others are built on: nothing can render until the first byte arrives, so a slow TTFB pushes back every paint that follows. The causes are on the server and the network, slow backend processing, no caching, or a long trip to a distant origin.

Start by getting a fast, cacheable response out the door. Cache full pages where you can, put a CDN in front so visitors are served from nearby, and keep the backend work on each request small. Early Hints use that wait: the browser can start fetching critical resources while the server is still building the page.

How are sites doing on TTFB?

58.6% of sites have a good TTFB. The typical site sits at 1.2s at the 75th percentile; the slowest 1% pass 4.2s.

Go fix it 103 Early Hints → Configure Cloudflare for Core Web Vitals → Free website cache warmer →
Related signals FCP → LCP → CLS → INP → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured